Loophole in stopping Money Laundering through Wagering

[Doan9269]

As we know that most gambling sites will require you to gamble and wager your whole balance once, before you can cash out or withdraw from the gambling site and they take this measure so people do not do money laundering whereby deposit and withdraw without gambling.

This is very common to most of the gambling platforms as long as they are kyc casinos, you should expect such from them from time to time because the kyc verification requirements is in phases and stages and they release them also in batches as well, this has to be taken care of and we must always have the required informations needed at hand to provide them with before they requested for them.

So does this mean that there is a loophole here and the money launderers can easily by pass this wagering requirement?

The casinos shouldn't have more attention on money laundering because that's not their sole responsibility and when they try to introduce such control measures against money laundering, they may be loosing their customers at the cause of doing that and it may not be well enough for them to adapt on this kind conditions because they will record a low income due to reduced numbers of gamblers.

[1715327372]

1715327372

[1715327372]

1715327372

[1715327372]

1715327372

[Mahdirakib]

So does this mean that there is a loophole here and the money launderers can easily by pass this wagering requirement?

There is no loophole in the AML policy and wagering requirement. A casino may allow you to withdraw your funds once or twice with the minimum wagering requirement. Then the anti-fraud system of the casino will trigger the KYC verification if a user continuously does it. In that case, the user has to pass the source of funds verification process (as yahoo62278 has said above). It won't be possible for anyone to complete the source of funds verification if his/her funds are coming from unverified sources.

[Slow death]

I think thieves are very smart enough that they don't deposit stolen money in casinos knowing that there will be a great chance of being asked for kyc, having to make a lot of bets and losing those bets and consequently losing money, having to reveal their ip, and a very big risk, when they can simply use a mixer, even if the thief is afraid of mixers because they are new mixers, he will still have the option to list many mixers and put few coins in each mixer and with that he would test which mixers will be reliable

for him to continue using it in the long term, as you can see this without a doubt would be the best path the thief would use and I am convinced that all thieves use mixer instead of casinos and big exchanges to launder money. in the casino it doesn't matter if there is an odd of @1.01 or @5.00 even so, at the end of the day the person will leave with long-term losses, thieves are very intelligent people and obviously they know how to do research before using any website, they knew it would be the worst mistake if they used a casino to launder money

[so98nn]

This era is full of surprises. The more we digital become the more digital crimes are happening everywhere. However, let us not forget that even more safety measures are being taken by most of the service providers. That is why we still need human intelligence working behind the desk who catches this kind of fraud. Even with the biggest mixer, we saw this fallback. I am not sure if money was getting laundered but the books were not clean which makes it look more fishy than anything else. In similar ways, every casino will have a fraud protection layout working around the clock. The casinos are all about the money so they need to be extra precautions about everything.

I assume the wagering requirement is one of the primary systems which works against fraud. That is also a good point and will answer many peeps as to why there is such high wagering requirement when it comes to newly adopted bonuses, sign-ups etc.

[DoublerHunter]

As we know that most gambling sites will require you to gamble and wager your whole balance once, before you can cash out or withdraw from the gambling site and they take this measure so people do not do money laundering whereby deposit and withdraw without gambling.

Now the point here is that on the gambling site, there are many easy winning bets with odds like 1.01x etc. If the money lauder is sensible he can easily be wagering the whole amount by placing a few bets where the odds are very low and the winning chances are 99%.

So does this mean that there is a loophole here and the money launderers can easily by pass this wagering requirement?

^That is possible that will happen and who knows then.
However, though that is possible will happen we know that gambling sites employ various measures to detect and prevent money laundering activities. These measures include identity verification, transaction monitoring, and flagging suspicious betting patterns. If a player consistently places high-volume wagers with extremely low odds, it would likely raise red flags and trigger further scrutiny of the player that is put into suspicious activity. That is the reason why the legitimate gambling casino applied KYC verification just because of this purpose.

[pawanjain]

As we know that most gambling sites will require you to gamble and wager your whole balance once, before you can cash out or withdraw from the gambling site and they take this measure so people do not do money laundering whereby deposit and withdraw without gambling.

Now the point here is that on the gambling site, there are many easy winning bets with odds like 1.01x etc. If the money lauder is sensible he can easily be wagering the whole amount by placing a few bets where the odds are very low and the winning chances are 99%.

So does this mean that there is a loophole here and the money launderers can easily by pass this wagering requirement?

Well technically they can do that but do you really think it is worth the risk ?
What if the unfortunate happens and you lose. All your stack will be gone and you cannot even complaint.
To be honest, the 1.01x odds does not guarantee a 99% win. In fact I just lost my stack in 1.01x bet after 10-15 consecutive wins.
It felt bad for a moment but I could afford to lose it but the money launderer would not.

[Yogee]

Money launderers may have done that easily in the past when regulators weren't so strict on crypto casinos but I doubt that's still the case now. Have you ever read about those players complaining why their funds where put on hold and they claim they didn't do anything wrong? Suspicious gaming behavior is probably one of that which triggered the security check. I bet casinos and game providers can identify those users trying to wash their funds 9 out of 10 times.

[Frankolala]

Using a casino for money laundering might make you end up losing the money to the casino. It is either that with time the money will be detected and your account will be freeze OR you will end up gambling all your money due to the wager requirement and rules for withdrawal of funds.

Your point is good because low odds have a big advantage of you winning the game,but you should also know that not all low odds means that the game will end up base on the odds,which means it doesn't work all the time. Gambling depends on luck and not on odds,so I would advise that instead of thinking on how to launder money through a casino,it would be better to use a mixer.

[arwin100]

As we know that most gambling sites will require you to gamble and wager your whole balance once, before you can cash out or withdraw from the gambling site and they take this measure so people do not do money laundering whereby deposit and withdraw without gambling.

Now the point here is that on the gambling site, there are many easy winning bets with odds like 1.01x etc. If the money lauder is sensible he can easily be wagering the whole amount by placing a few bets where the odds are very low and the winning chances are 99%.

So does this mean that there is a loophole here and the money launderers can easily by pass this wagering requirement?

Maybe not a loophole because there's a chance for money launderer to lose a lot of money if they lose and that is not ideal thing to do because they cannot take all the money stolen from anywhere. I doubt those criminals will use a casino which have wager requirements and also have Kyc since they might get trace out or they might carried away on the climax given by playing on a casino. Maybe those criminals will look for mixers rather than casino since this is less hassle to them.

[noormcs5]

You want to test the system out and deposit $1,000,000 and play dice at x1.01? What are you going to do when you lose 1 of your bets and say $250,000 goes in the toilet?

I'm not sure why they have a wager requirement really except to make a user wager on the site. They say for anti money laundering but essentially making a wager 1x is pretty easy no matter the amount. Where you really need to be concerned is when they ask you for proof of funds. If you cannot prove where the funds came from in a way that satisfies their requirement, you could lose it all.

Firstly i never said that anyone should play dice with 1.01x as i think this is still risky but I prefer to bet on sports and when a site gives you 1.01x sort of bet on any game, it means that the team is very likely to win.

Secondly, if any money launder wants to complete the wager of $1,000,000 , he would be fully stupid to put all $1,000,000 in a single bet. Rather he can place many number of bets with 1000$ only. Yes, it may take time but even the evil things  also need some sort of hard work.

Maybe not a loophole because there's a chance for money launderer to lose a lot of money if they lose and that is not ideal thing to do because they cannot take all the money stolen from anywhere. I doubt those criminals will use a casino which have wager requirements and also have Kyc since they might get trace out or they might carried away on the climax given by playing on a casino. Maybe those criminals will look for mixers rather than casino since this is less hassle to them.

Again, they can't lose much if they plan and execute with small amounts and complete the wagering in many numbers of bets.
Yes, mixers or exchanges can be easier for those criminals but since we are in the gambling section, the discussion is how can money launders life made more difficult at gambling casinos.

[ralle14]

Secondly, if any money launder wants to complete the wager of $1,000,000 , he would be fully stupid to put all $1,000,000 in a single bet. Rather he can place many number of bets with 1000$ only. Yes, it may take time but even the evil things  also need some sort of hard work.

I've done this once but at a smaller scale, and it's more costly than using other methods available because you'll still be losing around 20-30 bets even if you use smaller amounts.

With bigger amounts, it's probably risky since you have to go through verification because there's a limit on how much you can withdraw for non verified accounts and there's a possibility that the casino will increase deposit rollover for your account.

There used to be a casino that allows you to bypass the wagering requirements for your deposit but the downside is you need to get verified.

[Fortify]

As we know that most gambling sites will require you to gamble and wager your whole balance once, before you can cash out or withdraw from the gambling site and they take this measure so people do not do money laundering whereby deposit and withdraw without gambling.

Now the point here is that on the gambling site, there are many easy winning bets with odds like 1.01x etc. If the money lauder is sensible he can easily be wagering the whole amount by placing a few bets where the odds are very low and the winning chances are 99%.

So does this mean that there is a loophole here and the money launderers can easily by pass this wagering requirement?

This is not really a loophole and it will be well known by casino's already. There are such a different variety of setups, but any reasonable security system could detect such activity. Besides that, the person sending funds into a wallet and then betting is not instigating some sort of mixing action with the bitcoin. You seem slightly confused that the act of betting is somehow sending money elsewhere and an act of disguising the source, it's not. All of these funds will be highly segregated and controlled, on top of which an unrelated layer of data management can take place separate from the wallets.

[iv4n]

Money has been laundered through casinos since there have been casinos... probably not through every casino, there are always exceptions, but I think it's something that has been done for a long time. When I first heard about some major money laundering in EU casinos by Serbians who did illegal stuff there, it was about roulette, a couple of guys play roulette and mostly bet on red or black. If they lose some money, it's the commission, which is always paid, one way or another.

It's a loophole, but I will go with Yahoo on this... 1x is pretty easy to wager, and there are better ways to catch money launderers than this wagering requirements, it's more about casinos making people wagering.

[Learn Bitcoin]

As we know that most gambling sites will require you to gamble and wager your whole balance once, before you can cash out or withdraw from the gambling site and they take this measure so people do not do money laundering whereby deposit and withdraw without gambling.

Now the point here is that on the gambling site, there are many easy winning bets with odds like 1.01x etc. If the money lauder is sensible he can easily be wagering the whole amount by placing a few bets where the odds are very low and the winning chances are 99%.

So does this mean that there is a loophole here and the money launderers can easily by pass this wagering requirement?

No matter how much is the wagering requirements. No matter how much winning chance are you playing with? You still can lose the bet even if you place bets with a 99% win chance. Real gamblers do not do money laundering. Casinos require a wagering requirement saying it prevents money laundering, but they want a player to lose money.

Legit casinos won't force their players to wager more than 3x of their deposits if they do not take any kind of deposit bonus or other bonus. If they do, you should avoid such platforms. There is an opposite side as well, Why a real player would withdraw his money without even playing if he is a real gambler?

[Hispo]

Technically, it is not a loophole, because there is a chance the criminals trying to launder illicit money will end up losing an important amount to the casino. People who seek to launder try to do it with large enough amounts so the time they use can be justified.

Still, besides all this, I would also assume that the staff of the casino could easily ask for proof of origins of that money, in the case they noticed something strange going on with a particular user. Like some new account depositing much and, playing with high odds and has not completely gone through KYC, for example.

[Beparanf]

Technically, it is not a loophole, because there is a chance the criminals trying to launder illicit money will end up losing an important amount to the casino. People who seek to launder try to do it with large enough amounts so the time they use can be justified.

Still, besides all this, I would also assume that the staff of the casino could easily ask for proof of origins of that money, in the case they noticed something strange going on with a particular user. Like some new account depositing much and, playing with high odds and has not completely gone through KYC, for example.

Not instantly casino will ask proof of funds. I think a standard KYC that requires Identity verification is enough for whale players that will deposit huge since casino doesn’t want scared them off. Proof of source of income is only imminent if casino is already have a lead to users account that involves on money laundering.

Money launderer is not dumb enough to bet using same pattern because it can be caught easily by casino security team. Launderer usually play like a normal player since they have a huge bankroll, They can’t be beaten easily by betting on 50% win chance rate bet using small bets. Launderers bet randomly to avoid making a bet pattern. OP suggestion is definitely not a loophole and a dumb ways to launder money.

[ImThour]

There is still a risk of losing that bet where 1% chance is of losing it all and I am sure, the one who is money laundering will never want to lose the money on any % of odds.
They might be using some other sort of techniques to launder money which are unheard by the rest of the people as they try to keep these things as a secret.

But If I was to ask to wager 100% of my money, I would just bet 50% on Red and 50% on Black in a roulette just after green is already hit.

[aylabadia05]

So does this mean that there is a loophole here and the money launderers can easily by pass this wagering requirement?

As far as I know there is no gap to be able to pass the requirements as you mean.
Apart from that, as long as I am involved in any type of gambling game, the chances of winning never reach up to 99% if I am not mistaken in understanding what you mean.
From the explanation of the former casino owner who has quit the gambling life where he initially started his career as an operator or technical worker to establish his own online casino, that the formula for each casino regulates the percentage to lose for each player is greater.

Regarding money laundering, I think it would be easy for the authorities to trace the origin of money deposited by someone in the casino.

[bangjoe]

Now the point here is that on the gambling site, there are many easy winning bets with odds like 1.01x etc. If the money lauder is sensible he can easily be wagering the whole amount by placing a few bets where the odds are very low and the winning chances are 99%.

There is no sure winning in gambling; even the lowest odds can still lose a game. So if the intention of the user is to launder money through the Casino, their chances of losing the entire money before even getting it out are high.
 
Lower Odds give one some confidence that their chances of winning are huge, but it does not always happen that way. So trying to use that as a loophole in an online casino might lead you to fall victim to losing all your wagers.

I strongly agree in this matter, if even then has a smaller multiplication than that there is no guarantee that the bet that is done has a victory, it is only a prediction speculation, and if you often see it changing as the gamble goes, even gambling in football , the team that had been confirmed to win in the last minute in the match they found a draw that was drawn and or even his position turned into a defeat, and the money will disappear.

If it is so possible, it is likely that many people can be rich more easily, even I who have even small capital in betting if I do it consistently with the certainty of profits based on the multiplication of victory on the gambling platform I will easily become rich. LOL

[jrrsparkles]

As we know that most gambling sites will require you to gamble and wager your whole balance once, before you can cash out or withdraw from the gambling site and they take this measure so people do not do money laundering whereby deposit and withdraw without gambling.

Now the point here is that on the gambling site, there are many easy winning bets with odds like 1.01x etc. If the money lauder is sensible he can easily be wagering the whole amount by placing a few bets where the odds are very low and the winning chances are 99%.

So does this mean that there is a loophole here and the money launderers can easily by pass this wagering requirement?

This is not really a loophole but I can think it can be an actual trap if someone tries to launder their money using casino because the wagering requirements are the only measure to avoid money launderers, in most cases when thet feel something shady the casino is going to ask for the proof of funds then it will get them to more difficult situation.

Even with 99% probability of winning still that 1% can make the whole amount to bust cause I tried dice with such strategy so I can make some but always ended up losing though.